The Articles of Confederation
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Describe the steps taken during and after the American Revolution to create a government

Identify the main features of the Articles of Confederation

Describe the crises resulting from key features of the Articles of Confederation
Waging a successful war against Great Britain required that the individual colonies, now sovereign states that often
distrusted one another, form a unified nation with a central government capable of directing the country’s defense.
Gaining recognition and aid from foreign nations would also be easier if the new United States had a national government
able to borrow money and negotiate treaties. Accordingly, the Second Continental Congress called upon its delegates to
create a new government strong enough to win the country’s independence but not so powerful that it would deprive
people of the very liberties for which they were fighting.
Putting a New Government in Place
The final draft of the Articles of Confederation, which formed the basis of the new nation’s government, was accepted
by Congress in November 1777 and submitted to the states for ratification. It would not become the law of the land until all
thirteen states had approved it. Within two years, all except Maryland had done so. Maryland argued that all territory west
of the Appalachians, to which some states had laid claim, should instead be held by the national government as public
land for the benefit of all the states. When the last of these states, Virginia, relinquished its land claims in early 1781,
Maryland approved the Articles.[1] A few months later, the British surrendered.
Americans wished their new government to be a republic, a regime in which the people, not a monarch, held power and
elected representatives to govern according to the rule of law. Many, however, feared that a nation as large as the United
States could not be ruled effectively as a republic. Many also worried that even a government of representatives elected
by the people might become too powerful and overbearing. Thus, a confederation was created—an entity in which
independent, self-governing states form a union for the purpose of acting together in areas such as defense. Fearful of
replacing one oppressive national government with another, however, the framers of the Articles of Confederation created
an alliance of sovereign states held together by a weak central government.
Following the Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen states had drafted and ratified a constitution providing
for a republican form of government in which political power rested in the hands of the people, although the right to vote
was limited to free (white) men, and the property requirements for voting differed among the states. Each state had a
governor and an elected legislature. In the new nation, the states remained free to govern their residents as they wished.
The central government had authority to act in only a few areas, such as national defense, in which the states were
assumed to have a common interest (and would, indeed, have to supply militias). This arrangement was meant to prevent
the national government from becoming too powerful or abusing the rights of individual citizens. In the careful balance
between power for the national government and liberty for the states, the Articles of Confederation favored the states.
Thus, powers given to the central government were severely limited. The Confederation Congress, formerly
the Continental Congress, had the authority to exchange ambassadors and make treaties with foreign governments and
Indian tribes, declare war, coin currency and borrow money, and settle disputes between states. Each state legislature
appointed delegates to the Congress; these men could be recalled at any time. Regardless of its size or the number of
delegates it chose to send, each state would have only one vote. Delegates could serve for no more than three
consecutive years, lest a class of elite professional politicians develop. The nation would have no independent chief
executive or judiciary. Nine votes were required before the central government could act, and the Articles of
Confederation could be changed only by unanimous approval of all thirteen states.
What Went Wrong with the Articles?
The Articles of Confederation satisfied the desire of those in the new nation who wanted a weak central government with
limited power. Ironically, however, their very success led to their undoing. It soon became apparent that, while they
protected the sovereignty of the states, the Articles had created a central government too weak to function effectively.
One of the biggest problems was that the national government had no power to impose taxes. To avoid any perception of
“taxation without representation,” the Articles of Confederation allowed only state governments to levy taxes. To pay for its
expenses, the national government had to request money from the states, which were required to provide funds in
proportion to the value of the land within their borders. The states, however, were often negligent in this duty, and the
national government was underfunded. Without money, it could not pay debts owed from the Revolution and had trouble
conducting foreign affairs. For example, the inability of the U.S. government to raise sufficient funds to compensate
colonists who had remained loyal to Great Britain for their property losses during and after the American Revolution was
one of the reasons the British refused to evacuate the land west of the Appalachians. The new nation was also unable to
protect American ships from attacks by the Barbary pirates.[2] Foreign governments were also, understandably, reluctant
to loan money to a nation that might never repay it because it lacked the ability to tax its citizens.
The fiscal problems of the central government meant that the currency it issued, called the Continental, was largely
worthless and people were reluctant to use it. Furthermore, while the Articles of Confederation had given the national
government the power to coin money, they had not prohibited the states from doing so as well. As a result, numerous
state banks issued their own banknotes, which had the same problems as the Continental. People who were unfamiliar
with the reputation of the banks that had issued the banknotes often refused to accept them as currency. This reluctance,
together with the overwhelming debts of the states, crippled the young nation’s economy.
The country’s economic woes were made worse by the fact that the central government also lacked the power to impose
tariffs on foreign imports or regulate interstate commerce. Thus, it was unable to prevent British merchants from flooding
the U.S. market with low-priced goods after the Revolution, and American producers suffered from the competition.
Compounding the problem, states often imposed tariffs on items produced by other states and otherwise interfered with
their neighbors’ trade.
The national government also lacked the power to raise an army or navy. Fears of a standing army in the employ of a
tyrannical government had led the writers of the Articles of Confederation to leave defense largely to the states. Although
the central government could declare war and agree to peace, it had to depend upon the states to provide soldiers. If
state governors chose not to honor the national government’s request, the country would lack an adequate defense. This
was quite dangerous at a time when England and Spain still controlled large portions of North America.
Problems with the Articles of Confederation
Weakness of the Articles of Confederation
Why Was This a Problem?
The national government could not impose taxes
on citizens. It could only request money from the
states.
Requests for money were usually not honored. As a result, the national government did not
have money to pay for national defense or fulfill its other responsibilities.
Problems with the Articles of Confederation
Weakness of the Articles of Confederation
Why Was This a Problem?
The national government could not regulate
foreign trade or interstate commerce.
The government could not prevent foreign countries from hurting American competitors by
shipping inexpensive products to the United States. It could not prevent states from passing
laws that interfered with domestic trade.
The national government could not raise an
army. It had to request the states to send men.
State governments could choose not to honor Congress’s request for troops. This would make
it hard to defend the nation.
Each state had only one vote in Congress
regardless of its size.
Populous states were less well represented.
The Articles could not be changed without a
unanimous vote to do so.
Problems with the Articles could not be easily fixed.
There was no national judicial system.
Judiciaries are important enforcers of national government power.
The Articles of Confederation suffered from many problems that could not be easily repaired. The biggest problem was the lack of power
given to the national government.
The weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, already recognized by many, became apparent to all as a result of an
uprising of Massachusetts farmers, led by Daniel Shays. Known as Shays’ Rebellion, the incident panicked the governor
of Massachusetts, who called upon the national government for assistance. However, with no power to raise an army, the
government had no troops at its disposal. After several months, Massachusetts crushed the uprising with the help of local
militias and privately funded armies, but wealthy people were frightened by this display of unrest on the part of poor men
and by similar incidents taking place in other states.[3] To find a solution and resolve problems related to commerce,
members of Congress called for a revision of the Articles of Confederation.
SHAYS’ REBELLION: SYMBOL OF DISORDER AND IMPETUS TO ACT
In the summer of 1786, farmers in western Massachusetts were heavily in debt, facing imprisonment and the loss of their lands. They
owed taxes that had gone unpaid while they were away fighting the British during the Revolution. The Continental Congress had
promised to pay them for their service, but the national government did not have sufficient money. Moreover, the farmers were
unable to meet the onerous new tax burden Massachusetts imposed in order to pay its own debts from the Revolution.
Led by Daniel Shays, the heavily indebted farmers marched to a local courthouse demanding relief. Faced with the refusal of many
Massachusetts militiamen to arrest the rebels, with whom they sympathized, Governor James Bowdoin called upon the national
government for aid, but none was available. The uprising was finally brought to an end the following year by a privately funded militia
after the protestors’ unsuccessful attempt to raid the Springfield Armory.
This contemporary depiction of Continental Army veteran Daniel Shays (left) and Job Shattuck (right), who led an uprising of Massachusetts farmers in 1786–1787
that prompted calls for a stronger national government, appeared on the cover of Bickerstaff’s Genuine Boston Almanack for 1787.
Were Shays and his followers justified in their attacks on the government of Massachusetts? What rights might they have
sought to protect?
Fearful of creating a system so powerful that it might abuse its citizens, the men who drafted the Articles of Confederation
deliberately sought to limit the powers of the national government. The states maintained the right to govern their
residents, while the national government could declare war, coin money, and conduct foreign affairs but little else. Its
inability to impose taxes, regulate commerce, or raise an army hindered its ability to defend the nation or pay its debts. A
solution had to be found.
SOURCES
1. Stuart Bruchey. 1990. Enterprise: The Dynamic Economy of a Free People. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 223. ↵
2. Joseph J. Ellis. 2015. The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789. New York:
Knopf, 92. ↵
3. David P. Szatmary. 1980. Shays' Rebellion: The Making of an Agrarian Insurrection. Amherst, MA: University
of Massachusetts Press, 84-86, 102-104. ↵